DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The response of January 26, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. With the response, claims 1, 12 and 23 have been amended. Claim 24 has been added. Currently, claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-23 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0341034 (Biddick et al.) in view of US 2006/0157240 (Shaw et al.). With the response, applicant suggests that the combination does not provide a prima facie case of obviousness because the sensors disclosed by Biddick et al. and Shaw et al. are sensing a location and not a movement of a movable feature. The examiner does not agree.
Biddick et al. was provided for disclosing all of the pertinent limitations except for a magnetic sensor coupled to one of a moveable or fixed feature of a safety valve, and Shaw et al. was provided for illustrating the claimed feature. The claims, as amended, now recite a sensor configured to sense a movement of “one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of a safety valve.
Shaw et al., at figure 3 illustrates a safety valve with flapper 18 pivotally connected at hinge pin 20 to the housing of the valve. The flapper has a magnet 28 and the housing has sensors 30 and 32 which are “sensitive to a magnet in proximity thereto and thus can verify a closed or open position of flapper 18”. Since it is the movement of the magnet 28 that determines the open or closed position of the flapper, the reference continues to read on the limitation as presented. This rejection will be maintained and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0341034 A1 (Biddick et al.) in view of US 2006/0157240 A1 (Shaw et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Biddick et al. discloses a safety valve, comprising: an outer housing 38; a bore flow management actuator 26 disposed within the outer housing; a valve closure mechanism 22 disposed within the outer housing, the bore flow management actuator 26 configured to slide from a first initial state to a first subsequent state to move the valve closure mechanism 22 between a first closed state and a first open state; one or more permanent magnets 29 (see figure 9 and figure 10) coupled to one of a movable feature of the safety valve or a fixed feature of the safety valve; but lacks to expressly disclose one or more magnetic field angle sensors coupled to one of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets, the one or more magnetic field angle sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve.
Shaw et al. discloses a safety valve including one or more magnetic field angle sensors 30, 32 coupled to one of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets 28, the one or more magnetic field angle sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets 28 to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve (see, 0019, “Sensors 30 and 32 are sensitive to a magnet in proximity thereto and thus can verify a closed or open position of flapper 18 due to magnet 28 coming into proximity to sensors 30 and 32, respectively”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the sensors of Shaw et al. that are responsive to the movement of the magnet into the valve of Biddick et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of providing a reliable indicator of the position of the flapper, thus indicating the health of the valve (i.e., if the valve is open, closed or operating correctly).
As concerns claim 2, Biddick et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 1, wherein the movable feature is at least a portion of the bore flow management actuator 26.
As concerns claim 3, Biddick et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 2, wherein the bore flow management actuator includes a flow tube 26 main body (see, 0022) configured to move the valve closure mechanism between the first closed state and the first open state, and further wherein the movable feature is the flow tube main body.
As concerns claim 4, Biddick et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 1, wherein the movable feature is the valve closure mechanism 22.
As concerns claim 5, Biddick et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 4, wherein the valve closure mechanism is a flapper valve 22.
As concerns claim 7, Shaw et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are configured to sense a velocity of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve (which is simply another way of stating that the sensors determine a position of the valve, see 0018-0020).
As concerns claim 8, Shaw et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to one of the movable feature of the safety valve or the fixed feature of the safety valve and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors coupled to another of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve (Id.).
As concerns claim 9, Shaw et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to one of the movable feature of the safety valve or the fixed feature of the safety valve and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors coupled to another of the fixed feature of the safety valve of the movable feature of the safety valve (figure 3).
As concerns claim 10, Shaw et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 9, wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to the movable feature 22 and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are coupled to the fixed feature (figure 3).
As concerns claim 11, Shaw et al. discloses the safety valve as recited in Claim 1, wherein the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are two or more proximately positioned magnetic field angle sensors (figure 3).
As concerns claim 12, Biddick et al. discloses a well system, comprising: a wellbore 14 extending through one or more subterranean formations; production tubing 20 disposed in the wellbore; and a safety valve 12 disposed in the wellbore, the safety valve including: an outer housing 38; a bore flow management actuator 26 disposed within the outer housing; a valve closure mechanism 22 disposed within the outer housing, the bore flow management actuator configured to slide from a first initial state to a first subsequent state to move the valve closure mechanism between a first closed state and a first open state (figure 9, figure 10); one or more permanent magnets 29 coupled to one of a movable feature of the safety valve or a fixed feature of the safety valve; but lacks to expressly disclose one or more magnetic field angle sensors coupled to one of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets, the one or more magnetic field angle sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve.
Shaw et al. discloses a well system including a safety valve with one or more magnetic field angle sensors 30, 32 coupled to one of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets 28, the one or more magnetic field angle sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve (see, 0019, “Sensors 30 and 32 are sensitive to a magnet in proximity thereto and thus can verify a closed or open position of flapper 18 due to magnet 28 coming into proximity to sensors 30 and 32, respectively”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the sensors of Shaw et al. that are responsive to the movement of the magnet into the valve of Biddick et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of providing a reliable indicator of the position of the flapper, thus indicating the health of the valve (i.e., if the valve is open, closed or operating correctly).
As concerns claim 13, Biddick et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the movable feature is at least a portion of the bore flow management actuator 26.
As concerns claim 14, Biddick et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 13, wherein the bore flow management actuator includes a flow tube main body (0022) configured to move the valve closure mechanism between the first closed state and the first open state, and further wherein the movable feature is the flow tube main body (figure 9 and figure 10).
As concerns claim 15, Biddick et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the movable feature is the valve closure mechanism 22.
As concerns claim 16, Biddick et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 15, wherein the valve closure mechanism is a flapper valve 22.
s concerns claim 18, Shaw et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are configured to sense a velocity of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve (which is simply another way of stating that the sensors determine a position of the valve, see 0018-0020).
As concerns claim 19, Shaw et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are configured to sense an acceleration versus time of movement of the movable feature to determine the health of the safety valve (Id.).
As concerns claim 20, Shaw et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to one of the movable feature of the safety valve or the fixed feature of the safety valve and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors coupled to another of the fixed feature of the safety valve of the movable feature of the safety valve (figure 3).
As concerns claim 21, Shaw et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 20, wherein the one or more permanent magnets are coupled to the movable feature and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are coupled to the fixed feature (figure 3).
As concerns claim 22, Shaw et al. discloses the well system as recited in Claim 12, wherein the one or more magnetic field angle sensors are two or more proximately positioned magnetic field angle sensors (as illustrated, see figure 3).
As concerns claim 23, Biddick et al. discloses a method, comprising: positioning a safety valve 12 within a wellbore 14 extending through one or more subterranean formations, the safety valve disposed in production tubing 20, the safety valve including: an outer housing 38; a bore flow management actuator 26 disposed within the outer housing; a valve closure mechanism 22 disposed within the outer housing, the bore flow management actuator 26 configured to slide from a first initial state to a first subsequent state to move the valve closure mechanism between a first closed state and a first open state (figure 9, figure 10); one or more permanent magnets 29 coupled to one of a movable feature of the safety valve or a fixed feature of the safety valve; but lacks to expressly disclose one or more magnetic field angle sensors coupled to one of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets, the one or more magnetic field angle sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature to determine a health of the safety valve; and sensing a movement of the movable feature using the one or more permanent magnets and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors to determine a health of the safety valve.
Shaw et al. discloses a method for a safety valve including one or more magnetic field angle sensors 30, 32 coupled to one of the fixed feature of the safety valve or the movable feature of the safety valve and positioned proximate the one or more permanent magnets 28, the one or more magnetic field angle sensors configured to sense a movement of the one or more permanent magnets to determine a moving of the movable feature 18 to determine a health of the safety valve; and sensing a movement of the movable feature 18 using the one or more permanent magnets 28 and the one or more magnetic field angle sensors 30, 32 to determine a health of the safety valve (see, 0019, “Sensors 30 and 32 are sensitive to a magnet in proximity thereto and thus can verify a closed or open position of flapper 18 due to magnet 28 coming into proximity to sensors 30 and 32, respectively”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the sensors of Shaw et al. that are responsive to the movement of the magnet into the valve of Biddick et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of providing a reliable indicator of the position of the flapper, thus indicating the health of the valve (i.e., if the valve is open, closed or operating correctly).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al., as modified and applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2021/0254431 A1 (Prost).
As concerns claim 24, the combination discloses the safety valve as recited in claim 1, but lacks to disclose the specific claimed sensors being GMR, TMR or AMR sensors.
Prost discloses a downhole flow control valve that uses position sensors that can be LVDT, resistive, AMR, acoustic, or other appropriate sensors.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the position sensors of Prost into the safety valve of Biddick et al. and Shaw et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as this results in using sensors that may be more sensitive and able to determine a position of a moving element, as well as being one example of a known type of sensors that might be selected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to suit a particular application or operation.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biddick et al., as modified, and further in view of US 2011/0240299 A1 (Vick, Jr. et al.).
As concerns claim 6 and 17, the combination lacks to disclose the valve closure mechanism comprising a ball valve; nevertheless Vick, Jr., et al. discloses a safety valve for a well where the valve closure mechanism comprises a ball valve (in the embodiment of figure 7A and 7B, it is a flapper in the other embodiments of the valve).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously configured the valve closure mechanism as a ball valve with a reasonable expectation of success, as this provides the desirable result of providing a closure mechanism that is generally more robust, and may be more suitable for higher pressure applications.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672